Analyzing Arguments-Categories

Goals

1. Describe the things to look for when you are analyzing an argument.
2. Skillfully use this system for analyzing any argument.

What?

This page presents five things to look at (five categories) when you analyze an argument.

They are designed to be Collectively Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive (CEME):  

• Collectively Exhaustive – they cover everything important.  

• Mutually Exclusive – each category focuses on a distinct aspect of the argument.

Why?

Analyzing arguments can be complex, nuanced, and difficult.  

Breaking the task into five categories provides structure, clarity, and completeness.

This framework is also general: it can be used to analyze any argument—your own or someone else’s.

Using these categories doesn’t guarantee a high-quality analysis. But failing to consider one or more of them almost always weakens your understanding or response.  

In short: the system is necessary, even if it’s not sufficient.

Examples

Use the 5 categories to analyze any conclusion.

1. A court case: is the defendant guilty or not?
2. A conclusion you want to present to others? Should you or anyone else accept your conclusion.
3. A conclusion reached by a colleage? Should they, your or others accept this conclusion.
4. A political choice. Who, if anyone should accept this?

Analysis (Breakdown of Main Ideas)

Analyzing an argument

This means examining a conclusion and the reasons for this conclusion and then determining if this conclusion should be accepted on a scale that spans from absolutely no to absolutely yes.

Argument

An argument is a conclusion plus one or more reasons (premises) that justify why you or anyone else should accept this conclusion.

Collectively Exhaustive, Mutually Exclusive (CEME)

CEME is a way to organize information that ensures that all possibilities are accounted for (collectively exhaustive) and each possibility belongs to only one category (mutually exclusive).

CEME organization makes information easier to remember, apply, update, and add to.

The 5-Part Analysis System

Claim – What is being argued?

• What is the main conclusion?
• Is it:
• Clear and specific?
• A claim of fact, value, or policy?
• Debatable or just a description?
• Does the claim stay consistent throughout the argument?

Premises – What reasons support the claim?

• What reasons, evidence, or assumptions are given?
• Are the premises:
• True or believable?
• Relevant and sufficient?
• Are values, opinions, or biases embedded?
• Does the argument:
• Address counterarguments?
• Offer rebuttals to opposing views?
• Represent opposing views fairly?

Meaning & Logic – How clearly and logically are the ideas expressed?

• Are key terms and ideas clearly defined?
• Are definitions used consistently?
• Is the argument’s structure logical?
• Do the premises logically support the conclusion?
• Are there hidden assumptions or shifts in meaning?

Errors – What weakens the argument?

• Are there logical fallacies (e.g., ad hominem, slippery slope)?
• Is there emotional manipulation, bias, or misleading framing?
• Are important objections ignored or misrepresented?
• Are premises assumed without proof?
• Is evidence cherry-picked or taken out of context?

Values – What beliefs or priorities shape the argument?

• What moral, cultural, or ideological values are involved?
• Are values:
• Stated clearly or implied silently?
• Shared by the intended audience?
• Appropriate and consistent with the claim?

Summary Table

Category	Focus	Key Questions
Claim	Main conclusion or point	What is being argued?
Premises	Supporting reasons and responses	Are the reasons valid, complete, and balanced?
Meaning & Logic	Definitions and logical structure	Does the reasoning make sense and flow logically?
Errors	Weaknesses and flaws	What misleads or weakens the argument?
Values	Underlying beliefs and priorities	What belief system shapes this reasoning?